Feinstein: We Have to Outlaw Pistol Braces Because They Increase Accuracy

Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed new “assault weapons” ban goes much farther than any of her previous efforts at civilian disarmament. She and her co-sponsors, Connecticut Senators Richard “Saigon” Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, have authored a bill that outlaws more than 200 specific firearms, and bans the manufacture, sale, transfer or import of standard capacity magazines and bump fire stocks.

But they don’t stop there. First, DiFi and her two hoplophobic stooges would also outlaw…

…assault pistols that weigh 50 or more ounces when unloaded, a policy included in the original 1994 ban.

Why does the doyenne of disarmament object to such an accessory? Because they…

…transform assault pistols into assault rifles by allowing the shooter to shoulder the weapon and fire more accurately.

That’s right, the problem with pistol braces is they make guns too accurate. Because inaccurate guns are so much more preferable.

Nick Leghorn for TTAG

We talked to SB Tactical’s Alex Bosco (above right), inventor of the pistol brace. He had this to say about Feinstein’s proposed ban:

Banning a product designed to aid wounded veterans and the disabled is like advocating the use of our tax dollars to support illegal immigrants over our veterans.

And if her concern is to ban a product that makes a firearm more accurate, why did she push a ban on bump stocks?

Not that logic or facts really matter much to a dedicated gun-grabber like the senior Senator from California. Her bill would also ban such innocuous accessories as pistol grips, forward grips, barrel shrouds and collapsible stocks, so why not nix pistol braces, too?

The point of gun control, after all, is never the guns so much as it is control.

Gotta ban bumpstocks because they make guns inaccurate, you know, to cover all bases. Scopes are next, followed by red dots, then irons. Soon you will only be able to glue a BB to the end of your barrel.

Don’t forget if that glued on BB falls off though you are not allowed to fix it yourself, that in assault lady’s eyes would make you a manufacturer and therefore a felon. You have to send it off with a several hundred dollar tax to get the BB glued back on.

My undocumented “barrel burka” is required to be imported into the county by tossing it over, or handed thru a currently built barrier separating the US from our southern neighbor. Then the item would be a “protected” class.

I registered an “assault pistol” in California, and was rejected when I failed to select the “barrel shroud” option of characteristics, when I clearly had a standard hand guard. Make no mistake, that characteristic will be used to ban featureless builds like the Fightlite SCR…

Why all the talk about barrel shrouds. The answer is obvious to anyone objectively looking at such firearms.

Shrouds serve to provide air cooling for hot barrels (see air cooled machine guns that are not mini-guns). Barrel shrouds allow longer rapid fire events because the shrouds mitigate barrel overheating. What hunter needs to air cool a barrel? No private citizen should be firing at a rate that requires air cooling. Air cooling is a prominent characteristic of weapons of war; assault weapons; ban shrouds.

No, I live in an assault-weapons-ban (AWB) state (yes, thanks for your condolences), so I know how the antis define a barrel shroud. They don’t use your definition; they don’t define a barrel shroud as something that cools the barrel. Instead, they define it as broadly and vaguely as possible to ban the most possible weapons — they define a barrel shroud as “anything attached to or encircling the barrel that and keeps your non-firing hand from being burned.” By that definition, every rifle with a forestock has a barrel shroud (the only exception being the 1860 Henry, which has no fore stock, or an 1858 New Army revolver carbine — yes, I like antique weapons).

The antis’ definition of “barrel shroud” does not distinguish it from a forestock or handguard, so all handguns with forestocks or handguards are banned in AWB states.

By the antis’ definition, every AR-15 handguard is a “barrel shroud” because (in addition to giving you a sight rail, which is its main purpose), it keeps you from burning your non-firing hand).

By the anti’s definition, some models of the Ruger 22/45 Lite (a .22 LR target pistol) are probably “assault weapons” because they have an aluminum shroud overtop of the stainless steel inner barrel, tensioning the inner barrel for accuracy (but so far, New Jersey hasn’t banned them, but just wait, they will as soon as some anti complains that this accuracy-enhancing feature on a .22 target pistol is actually an evil, baby-killing “barrel shroud”).

By the antis’ definition, every model of the 10/22 Charger pistol (a .22 LR target pistol!) has already been banned in AWB states such as New Jersey because it has not one but THREE “evil features”:
1) It weighs just over 50 oz, magically turning it into an evil babykiller somehow, not sure how!
2) It has an evil, ultra-killy threaded barrel, which somehow makes it kill babies or something.
3) It has a magazine OUTSIDE of the pistol grip, which makes it an evil movie-villain assault weapon, just because a James Bond movie villain (Jaws, I believe) once used an 1896 Broomhandle Mauser pistol (also banned in New Jersey!) in a movie 40 years ago, and therefore all handguns with magazines outside the pistol grip are evil, movie-villain “assault weapons.” Yes, the 1896 Broomhandle Mauser and the Ruger 10/22 Charger pistol are both banned in NJ as “assault weapons”, because of a James Bond movie!

God, I hate living in the People’s Republic of New Jersey!
Someday, I hope to move from New Jersey to the United States of America. Maybe I can request political asylum in Pennsylvania!

Yes, the definition of “barrel shroud” says what it “is”, but does not expose the reasoning. The reasoning is not actually that a thing that keeps the barrel from burning your hand, but that no gun should generate enough heat to burn your hand. Theory being that a single-shot rifle will not reach a heat level that will burn your hand. If a barrel is hot enough to burn, it is being shot too fast and too long. If it can burn your hand, you won’t be able to kill as many people so quickly. And that is what barrel shroud bans are all about.

“10 rounds in a minute will heat up a barrel to burning hot, even in a bolt-action. The same number of rounds in 2 minutes will do the same.”

Exactly. That rate of fire would burn a hand, so the rate of fire would be much, much slower, meaning fewer casualties. Same with a wooden forearm. Knowing you would severely burn your hand in a mass shooting would act as a deterrent, a mitigator at worst.

Gloves that are not heat proof will delay the burn only slightly. Not likely the school shooters would think to buy welders gloves, and we could require all sales of heat proof gloves be subjected to UBC and strict regulation.

There are many gloves that would work, including oven mits, fireplace gloves and heavy duty construction gloves. You’d think someone who is intent on doing mass harm with a shroud less firearm knows how to handle it at the very least. They are, for the most part, like the gangbangers who buy a hot handgun and the first time they use it is to shoot they baby momses or the local drug dealer.

“You’d think someone who is intent on doing mass harm with a shroud less firearm knows how to handle it at the very least.”

To eliminate gun violence, we need to think of every conceivable way to make using guns more problematic. If even one proto mass shooter is deterred by fear of severe burns to the hand, it would be worth making the risk of burns a reality.

Besides, barrel shrouds just make guns look like machine guns, which is just bad because it tempts all the wannabe Rambos to think they can have the power of full auto shooting. And the cool looks also make otherwise meek individuals believe they can be cool by having a machine gun look-a-like.

What always cracked me up is “telescopic stocks” is an asault weapon feature. It’s to accommodate different size shooters. That’s like trying to lower traffic fatalities requiring cars without adjustable seats.

“What always cracked me up is “telescopic stocks” is an asault weapon feature.”

Actually, it is described as a feature to facilitate concealed carry. Which is a whole ‘nuther category of firearm/accessory. Expect the “facilitate concealed carry” to include all break-down long guns.

We are experiencing the results of Americans being illiterate when it comes to the Constitution, its history, influences that brought it to framing, and their responsibility for managing the people they chose to speak for them.

No-one should be reelected that is not honest, truthful, transparent, self-serving,, doesn’t keep promises and does not keep their Oath-of-Office.

Those that do not serve only those that elected them and instead put an unconstitutional political party agenda first must never be reelected.

Reelecting people that fail the above measures is perpetrating what we are experiencing now.

Stupid is continuing to do the same things and expecting different results. It ain’t going to happen.

We can fix our country without bloodshed by refusing to reelect everyone for the next threr elections in order to clean out the Senate.

Her next statement will be, “We need to ban long range precision bolt action rifles because their too accurate.” She will introduce a “sniper rifle” ban that will ban ALL modern bolt action hunting rifles with free floated barrels with 5R rifling and two-stage triggers. She will say, “We can’t have civilians owning military grade “sniper rifles” because you don’t need them for deer hunting.”

Re Timothy:
That’s not all if you live in California as I do. For errors of such magnitude the Swat team invades in the middle of the night to confiscate all your weapons, and yes that includes knives, clubs and rocks.
For if you can not control your freedom of speech without error surely you are deemed a menace to society without the capacity to control yourself.

Indeed. Those scumbags were instrumental in getting the sweeping gun law “reforms” of the 90s passed in the UK and Australia. And then they were shocked- SHOCKED, I tell you!- when suddenly grandpappy’s old bolt gun was reclassified as a prohibited “sniper rifle”

Red inCo
Not sure where your getting your information about Australia! I don’t like our gun laws (as mentioned many times here and elsewhere) but I have enough firearms to make me a “super owner” according to media.

There were NO licenses or registration in my state before 1996 so very few people belonged to SSAA or any other club. So no organised opposition to government.

Red in CO – things are not the best in Australia, but at least I don’t need a background check to buy ammunition. And financial entities don’t block or restrict transactions for firearms and related accessories.

I’m sure Diane Feinstein is writing that bill as we speak, to ban all bolt-action rifles because they’re too accurate.

Just look at the logic they use to ban the AR-15.
A) “The pistol grip makes the AR-15 an inaccurate bullet hose, so ban it!”

When intelligent people point out that the pistol grip is one of the many features that makes the AR-15 highly accurate, they don’t lose a beat:
B) “The pistol grip makes the AR-15 too accurate, like a sniper rifle, so ban it!”

The antis want to ban all inaccurate guns as “bullet hoses”, and at the same time they want to ban all accurate guns as “sniper rifles.”
The fact that if they ban both, all guns would be banned “is not a bug, it’s a feature,” in their minds.

It’s just like when the antis, especially in California, tried to pass laws banning all lead bullets (because they’re “bad for the environment”) and at the same time pass laws banning all bullets made out of metals harder than lead (because they’re “armor-piercing” bullets). The fact that the new law would ban ALL ammunition “isn’t a bug, it’s a feature!”

New York and New Jersey both pass laws like this all the time.
Can you believe that both states, when they lowered the limit on magazine capacity, forgot to exempt cops from the new law? Yes, in New Jersey, after the new magazine capacity law took effect on December 10, if a New Jersey cop brings home his service weapon, he becomes an instant felon, because cops in NJ were only exempt while “on duty” not while off duty, so when their shift ends, they all become instant felons!
Not that cops have to fear being arrested by other cops, but it just shows how stupid NJ laws are.

I was a NJ subject when several years ago the DMV did away with the registration date stickers that afix to license plates.
No one told the police.
Many, many people were pulled over and ticketed in the following months. Perfect example of the blind leading the spineless.

In Matt Bracken’s Enemies Foreign and Domestic, after somebody shoots a Senator at 500 yards with a Mosin-Nagant, and the president’s advisors pointed out that a hunting rifle was more dangerous than an AR-15, the president banned all rifle scopes by executive order. Let the Fudds hunt with open sights, but get rid of those damn sniper scopes.

They combined the scoped rifle ban with roadblocks to search everybody for contraband rifles.

She should be indicted, prosecuted and fighting for her life in a death penalty trial for treason. Along with all the others who signed their names to this legislation designed to usurp our Bill of Rights.

The logic seems flawless, to me. If we make it so a mass killer must change magazines often, we allow for escape, which results in fewer casualties (there’s data to prove it, right?). Thus, inaccurate firearms are a good thing because they will miss targets alot, and result in fewer injuries, and more people escaping between bullets that miss. All this with the added benefit that inaccurate firearms will also require more frequent reloads. Nice, neat package deal.

So my single shotgun with just a bead for a sight and buckshot is A-Okay then. I mean, everyone knows you cant hit anything without a front and rear sight and 30 rounds on tap. And shotguns are only good to 20 yards anyway, so you don’t have to worry about snipers.

“And shotguns are only good to 20 yards anyway, so you don’t have to worry about snipers.”

Only single-shot shotguns would be permitted. And a telescopic sight would be OK (for awhile). Thinking slugs have a range beyond 60 feet. Hhhmmm. You may be onto something…maybe shotguns are also too accurate. Gotta think on that one.

“I’ll just say that I know I can keep slugs inside of a 8″x11″ sheet of paper at 50 yards. Is that too accurate?”

Would say that such a load does not offer escape opportunities between the pellets at school shooting ranges. So, I guess your attack, assault, killer, sniper, semi-auto, overly accurate shotgun would be too accurate to allow. Turn it in before it becomes mandatory; avoid the lines.

“Well, the thing is I made the bow and arrows myself, I didn’t buy any of it. What do I do now?”

Modify then as necessary to meet legal requirements regarding quiver capacity, length of shaft/bolt, bow tension, then add a serial number to everything for record keeping (registration). Then you are good to go until society finds a need to remove all sharp instruments from the populace. Safety first.

FEINSTEIN IS HEAD OF THE CALIFORNIA DEMOCRAT NAZI PARTY!!
Ask her if the criminals give 2 shits what she wants banned, they know it only effects law abiding citizens!!
The Democrat Nazi Party now endorses only CRIMINALS, DRUG CARTELS, ILLEGALS and ANYONE WHO WILL VOTE FOR THEM!!They don’t care about the citizens of the USA, they only care about their own Power, Control, Money!!
They were all for the Southern Border Wall until Trump became president! THE DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS are responsible for the government shutdown! Think about it, when the government is shut down, private citizens save money!!

Liberals, the socialist progressives, hate the handicapped. They always have. That’s why they supported gassing them. Just as they suggested the Germans use gas on their handicapped citizens in the 1920’s.

See George Bernard Shaw. He was the first. Before Hitler to suggest gassing the mentally defective.

All agreed, although I think its dishonest to pretend that its not the case that 99% of people with braces get them to just use as a stock as a loophole to the SBR rules (which shouldn’t exist in the first place)

The 50 oz heavy pistol or exciting “new assault pistol ban!” wouldn’t just affect domestic AR and AK pistol production, but all the imported as a pistol guns would be gone, but I guess many of them would already be specifically killed by name, like an the zenith mp5 guns, b&t sub guns, CZ scorpion and Bren 2, etc. Basically the all PCC/subgun and short rifles. DiFi doesn’t want you to have a neutered, featureless AR or AK, she doesn’t want you to have an AR or AK or mp5 at all. I guess you could have a Ruger PCC without the threaded barrel.

Strangely the ban list is basically my gun shopping list…. Why do you hate what I like DiFi?

I wonder what the silencer market would look like if threaded barrels are outlawed? Pinned on only, or some new mount? There wouldn’t be a lot of the typical hosts to use them. I hope we never have to find out.

I really want to see her push this one through and some Vet take the stand and say she is killing his or her ability to hunt or shoot like they did before being combat wounded….that outta go over well!

Smartest thing the nasty bitch has ever said! Did she then answer why in hell we are trying, with the bump-stock ban? A clearly unconstitutional and unenforceable totally ineffective and useless violation of human rights?

So now we start down the “improves accuracy” road. Outlaw “pistol braces” because the improve accuracy. Next sign post: Outlaw sighting devices (lasers, scopes, red dots, peep sights, et al) because they “improve accuracy”. Eventually outlaw anything that “improves accuracy”. Maybe she’ll be happy when all we can have is smooth bore muskets sans sights. Nah, she’ll want to outlaw those to. 🙄 😡

Look up “Tripp” the editor of a military medical publication. He’s a retired military officer, also anti-2A advocate. He is calling for the banning of optics that, “you don’t need for hunting” such as red dot and other “military-style, military-grade” optics from public use. That’s coming and the Fudds need to wake up.

Let them sleep. They’d probably just insist you don’t need anything except a good set of irons (AKA the awful old non-adjustable hunting sights on pappy’s .22 squirrel gun) to be a good ethical huntsman anyway.

Been thinking about that. Some modern main battle tanks have high velocity smooth bore cannon. Not sure why smooth bore is an improvement for artillery, but not for long guns. Would a smooth bore long gun be inherently inaccurate at useful ranges? If smooth bore rifles prove more accurate than rifled barrels, it is only natural that smooth bore muskets would be prohibited. You may be right…smooth bore muskets could be too accurate. Blunderbuss may be permitted, instead. Need to get back to basics.

PS: Smooth bore tank shells are accurate because there are other ways to obtain accuracy besides rifling. Either nose heavy like a shotgun slug, or with small pop out fins/petals – some are also precision guided shells.

“PS: Smooth bore tank shells are accurate because there are other ways to obtain accuracy besides rifling.”

Thanks for the response.

Obviously, we need to restrict long guns to smooth bore, single-shot shotguns (no accuracy enhancements allowed) firing only grapeshot (so people can dodge between the inaccurate pieces of shot). And the spread must be at full span within 12in of leaving the barrel, and no more than 10 projectiles per shot.

The antis have always had a Goldilocks problem. That gun is too small. This one is too big. That one is too accurate. This one is not accurate enough. That one has a shoulder thing. This one has no shoulder thing. Just a bunch of tyrants leading a merry band of imbeciles ruled by fear.

Feinstein has been banging her head against the wall on gun control for years. This is just another round of her head banging. She knows this bill won’t pass in the current Congress, but it gets her good press with her political base back in California. If she couldn’t get this type of legislation through during the Obama years, she’s fully aware it’s sure not going to pass now.

Until gun control supports represent the majority of both bodies of Congress and a gun control supporter occupies the White House, this is just posturing for the voters back home. Don’t lose too much sleep over this bill.

Maybe, unless we get another conveniently timed mass shooting that causes a sudden outbreak of “for the children” disease in DC again. I fully expect our supposed allies and defenders up there to throw us under the bus for some points with the suburban soccer mom crowd in that event. Hell, Rick Scott launched his Senate career doing just that last year…

They want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but they don’t have that support yet. So they will do it indirectly like they do in California. Such bills are so complicated, illogical and long because they can’t simply write a few sentences saying: Guns are only for the government. Now turn yours in or die.

Not sure what your comment means, but I was intrigued about whether it was actually correct.
According to Wikipedia, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Adams were born in Virginia or Massachusetts. I did not bother checking further. Figured the first three Presidents and the first founder/inventive genius were enough.

“Blunderbuss limited grapeshot? That would result in lotsa material spread over lager area, inducing more inaccuracy. ”

Fine for a packed crowd at close range. Ever shoot buckshot out of a rifled shotgun barrel? The shot cloud spreads out like an umbrella due to the spin imparted on the shotcup. Very effective up to 25′ or so. One shot, multiple casualties. That was the design intent with the original blunderbuss.

“One shot, multiple casualties. That was the design intent with the original blunderbuss.”

Well, rats! We gotta come up with something that will make firearms less accurate so as to provide opportunity for more people to escape a mass shooting event in a suburban school campus. Which is why I advocated the mandating that grapeshot be limited to ten projectiles, full spread within 12in of leaving the barrel. That leaves a large safe area between projectiles, so escape is more probable.

Making guns less accurate is a concept that needs serious technical investigation.

My pistol was to accurate so I ground the sights off, it still put the bullets close together so I ran a dril bitl down the barrel, Ahhhh that’s better, now I’ve got bullets landing all over the countryside ,much safer that way.

“My pistol was to accurate so I ground the sights off, it still put the bullets close together so I ran a dril bitl down the barrel, Ahhhh that’s better, now I’ve got bullets landing all over the countryside ,much safer that way.”

Is it really that easy? We don’t need firearms and weapons effects engineers to figure out how to make guns less accurate?

“I wouldn’t wish death upon anyone, but if Feinstein had a fatal heart attack, I wouldn’t shed a tear….”

And her replacement would be different, how?

Old dems are taking advantage of not being able to get pet legislation through the Senate. The oldies need to compete with the young radicals, and the next two years will solidify the bona fides of the oldies to continue to run the Demoncrat Party.

I don’t know if things would improve, but her replacement would not have seniority. So, not even committee chairpersonship. But I keep hearing The Who: New Boss same as the Old Boss.
OTOH Her being a grossly offensive gun-grabber should keep 2nd Amendment supporters quite alert.
I do not know anything about her state of health other than she is quite old and probably under a lot of stress. I suspect that RGB is more likely to die first. If that occurs before November, 2020, it will be more significant than DiFi dying. Almost look forward to DiFi trying anything the least bit questionable during a Justice Committee hearing on a Trump SCOTUS nominee. For example, DiFi kept trying to get Kavanaugh to agree that the AR-15s were not in common use. (Yes, I am ignoring some other gross behavior.)

Her name has been out there awhile, but gets little actual publicity. However…

Mother Teresa would get a proper bashing and insulting, simply because she was nominated by Trump. No, any Trump nominee will receive even more hysteria than Kavanaugh, and there is no way Schumer will allow Trump a third appointment. I would expect a full scale government shutdown over the next Trump nominee.

Time is so very short. RBG must exit by March if there is any hope to get a nomination through before 2020. Then comes the Biden Rule and the Garland debacle all over again. Not putting any faith in the ability of McConnell to endure another nuclear option fight.

The second amendment is only for hunting and competition with muskets. Any other weapon is for the police, politicians and the military. Just look at all the opinions and interpretations the government have given. Who knows the law better than the people that write and enforce it? End of discussion.

Rand Paul was attacked from behind by a fellow Kentuckian. Was the guy from Louisville? Not sure we should mention things like bats, knives, or screwdrivers lest they get classified as ‘other assault weapons”. Last I heard, it was a crime to carry a screwdriver in London.
BTW: Your clever and almost-LOL joke is both sexist and ageist. I hope you do not get banned from commenting on this web site. (Actually, I would be astounded and saddened if you were.)

We can thank those California gun owners who picked Feinstein as the lesser of two evils over DeLeon.
DeLeon would have looked like a clown presenting this agenda, Feinstein gives it legitimacy to the general public.

After WW1, a great many firearms were stashed away rather than be turned in. Those were drug back out for use by the resistance fighters. God Bless Civil Disobedience!

Civil Disobedience is alive and well in the states which seek to ignore the Constitution and the 2d Amendment. We the People are resisting just as our Founders resisted the unfair treatment of King George III and his military representatives in the colonies.

Feinswine just does not know anything about firearms or the mechanics of firearms. She is the perfect example of why those who don’t know anything about firearms shout be involved in setting policy regarding firearms for those who do.

Every time anyone speaks inside the beltway they reveal their complete ignorance of everything and anything.
Take this banning things by name. All a maker has to do is rename their product/brand something else. If they ban AR15s, they can call them a WR29. Or a WD40, although there might be a copyright issue. No matter how many names they ban, there will always be more letters in the alphabet.
Lets call them “Arm Braces” from now on. Or perhaps “Lower Arm Gun Support”, or LAGS?

Sadly, I think you are wrong. In the earlier AWB, they mostly banned things by name. Yes, the manufacturers, both domestic and foreign, made ‘trivial’ changes to get around the ban. The 2nd Amendment supporters have been a little too open about ridiculing thee other side for this. We are now seeing many bans that are aimed at functionality. As many have pointed out, the wording of these efforts may be interpreted very broadly. The effect could be horrendous. For example, almost any change to the trigger, including non-factory pull-setting, is designed to allow faster and/or more accurate shooting.
As many have pointed out elsewhere, if this goes into effect, anyone who modifies their triggers or is in possession of a modified gun would be a felon. If convicted for this or a whole raft of other absurdities, your name goes in the NICS database and you never ever for the rest of your life get to buy a gun. In my state, transfers between private citizens require background checks. So, wham-bang-thank-you-ma’am, we get a pretty effective gun-ban. (Improving slightly on Andy Grove: Only the Paranoid have any chance of surviving.)

“Really neat chart displaying sizes and ballistics for shot shells. The spread chart is unsatisfactory, as it does not consider spread inside 10yrds. But, the trend seems to improve for certain rounds.

More work to be done.”

Note the pellet sizes in that chart. #4 buckshot is 6.5mm. While that fearsome AR round is only 5.56mm. And there’s 21 or more of ’em in every 12 gauge shell. My 590 holds 8 shells = 168 projectiles and I can unload all 8 in about 5 seconds. A little longer if I top off after the first 4 in less time than it takes somebody to swap mags in a AR. And I can keep topping off until I run out of ammo. So somebody tell me again about that evil AR-15 being top assault dog. 🙂

This is a response both to Gunny and to Sam. You both are applying logic and knowledge about actual danger to the public or to criminals. Not sure logic applies to at least the surface issues of the anti-gun folks.
Perhaps they are little more devious. (1) They cannot start with shotguns because they have been around too long. Many folks know their parents or grandparents had them for protection and for hunting. Hard to demonize them. (2) WRT: Defense of liberty, etc, the AR-15 is likely to be (or appear to be) more effective than shotguns. That is, in a pitched battle, folks are likely to be more than 100 yards apart. In an urban, house-to-house clearing scenario, having 20 or 30 rounds is more dangerous than 5-8 rounds.
Also, you can carry a lot more rounds. (3) When these anti-gun folks got started, the AR-15 was not very popular. So, the public was not familiar with them. They look scary. So, they could be demonized. I think (and hope) that this strategy is now obsolete. The best estimate I have seen is that there are now about 16 Million AR-15 class rifles in the USA(aka Modern Sporting Rifle or MSR). Which is cool wrt the ‘in common use’ part of the Heller decision. More importantly, a whole lot of Americans have gone through the learning process to understand that the MSR is a good choice for home defense and various SHTF or WROL scenarios.
JIC: It is not the 3, 4 or 5 Million NRA members that are key, but the 50-100 Million gun owners. We should let the anti-gunners keep calling the NRA Evil. It makes it easy to see that other things they say are false.

was not clear about (2). Many of the anti-gunners make statements that do not make sense. They also claim that they are not against all guns, but many of their goals cannot be achieved without disarming all regular citizens. Many times 2nd Amendment supporters ridicule them as ignorant and stupid (Biden’s shotgun, Bloomberg’s most murders done with automatic weapons.) I believe it is one’s civic duty to assume such folks are not stupid but devious liars. So, the likely belief that MSRs will be most effective in a Resistance scenario is the reason the anti-gunners want to get rid of them. They may go after .308 and .338 Lapua at the same time as AR-15s. If they don’t, those will be next because they are easily argued to be sniper rifles. And, they can be used effectively at greater distances and can penetrate standard armor. They will be a risk to officers and to political leaders. Note: they can be described as sniper weapons. So, they are not an immediate threat to ‘hunting’ rifles.

The selection of a weapon should be based on it’s intended use and the ability of the shooter. Often the 2 are not compatible however, with shooter ability usually taking top spot and therefore selecting a weapon that is not suitable for it’s intended purpose. The 5.56/223 AR is one of those in which light weight & recoil (and/or concealability ) is often the governing factor for civilian uses. Same with 9mm and similar handguns. This is understandable, but not necessarily the right choice. But as the saying goes: Any gun is better than no gun. 🙂 It’s always a compromise.

Here’s the silver lining in this cloud: If any gun owners out there doubted that the Democratic agenda was about total citizen disarmament (and there are still quite a few), this bill should provide absolute proof of what the Left is up to.

Not that their goals were any secret, but at least now we have the entire agenda in a single document. Eases the research load if nothing else.

“So, if I don’t want to burn my hand, I’ll have to use an assault pot holder!”

Unless the potholder has one or more of the banned features, it cannot qualify as an assault potholder. Sorry, my condolences to your collection of potholders. Maybe we can come up with a participation award for them.

Two comments: (1) If you wrap the potholder around the gun barrel, the gun becomes illegal (Sam was wrong to view the situation as a feature of the pot holder rather than it being a feature of the gun. Sam has shown himself to be logical and truthful. It is not a surprise that he would not understand the new-think.)
(2) I would recommend that you get some potholder gloves. Using just square potholders is likely to lead to your hand or wrist coming into direct contact with the naked barrel. Of course if you comply and only have a single-shot (muzzle-loader?) weapon, you should be safe from the horror of burnt fingers.
“Comply’ makes me think of 7of9 and the Borg. Let us all hope that Resistance is not futile.

Great insight, Sam. You learn fast. You may yet get a job as a Consultant with THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
I cannot afford a suppressor yet, but I have heard that they make barrels heat faster. So, we should ban sale and possession for the safety of the shooter.
Again, we are being sarcastic, but anti-gunners may turn these into really bad ideas.

If the Mayor of London can ban screwdrivers, then DiFi and her ilk can ban assault pots.
Assault pots would have handles that would allow an Evil citizens to fling frozen peas or corn with deadly speed AND accuracy. They could also fling boiled, but al dente, peas and corn to cause impact injuries and horrible burns. Probably a violation of the Geneva Convention anyway. Actually, the anti-gunners could make it a felony to use anything in a way that violates the Geneva Convention. Might almost be a sellable concept. But, there goes hollow-point ammunition.
Man, I wish I was just being foolishly humorous, but I fear that I become my own enemy at the instant that I post.

“Assault pots would have handles that would allow an Evil citizens to fling frozen peas or corn with deadly speed AND accuracy. They could also fling boiled, but al dente, peas and corn to cause impact injuries and horrible burns.”

You may not be that far off. In my burg, a firearm is classified as any device capable of launching a projectile. We are not unconcerned that the definition might include spoons used in a mashed potato fight.

Here comes Catch-223. If you operate an MSR without the banned features, you will be too inaccurate. So, you are a danger to the public. You are likely to come into contact with the very hot barrel. So, you are a danger to yourself. Yes, Yossarian you will be subject to Red Flag laws. Your gun will be taken away to protect you and society. If you add or have the banned features, you are a felon. So, you will be banned from owning guns.
Banned if you do. Banned if you don’t.

This is coming from a woman who was so damned dumb, she had a Chinese operative under her nose for 20-some-odd years, and either did not know it, or did not care? And now, once again, is lecturing everyone about how the 2nd Amendment needs to be banned? This woman belongs in jail just for being stupid. The scary thing is, this woman consistently gets re-elected. And if these gun-hating politicians are this bad NOW, with (what I have read on the stats) some 400 million guns in the hands of citizens, just how much worse could it get if we were NOT armed?

Waxing serious here. I have a BS in Math. Among other things, this has let me see two important issues.
First, sometimes two groups have a different set of beliefs (math: axioms or assumed truths). When they get into debates, they really cannot understand each other’s logic. This sometimes leads to yelling, name-calling and even fisticuffs. (and sadly gunfire). This phenomena is part of our problem in the gun control debate. An aspect of this is that these beliefs are not necessarily rational or subject to correction via logic.
Second, when a logic system is set up(set of axioms and allowed kinds of logic), it is not always obvious what the implications are. This is so even for those who believe the axioms. It is often more so for those who do not believe the axioms.
Mathematicians play in these systems seeing what Theorems, Lemmas and other things can be ‘proven’ using the logic rules. Even in well-defined mathematical systems, you get surprising results. Two famous ones: (1) Any sufficiently complex logic system will have statements which cannot be determined to be True or False. (2) Per Axiomatic Set Theory, if you accept the Axiom of Choice, you can ‘prove’ it is possible to disassemble an object the size of the sun into 7 parts and reassemble the parts into two objects the size (and mass) of the sun.
Returning to the Gun Control Debate, we have nothing even vaguely well-defined. On the 2nd Amendment Support side, you have a fairly large group of people that believe in the 2nd Amendment and understand a lot about human nature and the tendency of power corrupting. They have studied what it means wrt self defense and resistance to errant or nefarious government. Also, on that side is a continuum of folks that do not believe some of the above ‘basic truths’. So, even here we get angry arguments.
On the gun control side, we have people who do not seem to understand the why-s and wherefore-s of the 2nd Amendment and who believe that guns are more bad than good. Some, but not all, appear to believe that guns are an absolute bad. And, some appear to be interested in disarming the population so that various good and bad things can be accomplished. Sometimes this latter set seems to care about reducing guns reducing injuries to the innocent. Sometimes that is secondary to whatever big change they want to make.
For the sake of a point here, we can separate both sides into multiple groups. If two sets of people are from different such groups, then they may not be able to carry on a useful conversation. Each side will say things that seem ridiculous to the other. Each may say things that seem irrelevant to the other. As these occur and accrue, each side just stops listening. While both sides really want to convert the other, it is quite futile.
In many of my previous comments I have been trying to act/think like of of the anti-gunners whose beliefs would support many of DiFi’s proposed new rules. I then tried to see where those beliefs/laws would lead. That is, to anticipate both the intended and unintended consequences. Others, of course, have seen that the ‘no mods that speed up firing’ can lead to many disastrous limitations.
If what I was winging is actually going to be useful, it would be to present some version of it to the other side to let them walk through the implications of some of what they believe or are willing to accept. Again, that assumes they are willing to do so. That is, they are well-intentioned/good citizens. Not necessarily true.
Also, I am a math major and tend to think people will/can use logic and can change their beliefs when they see that they lead to undesirable outcomes. Perhaps DiFi and others are not such honest citizens.
Again, not clear this is a strategy that will work. But it is clear that no direct strategy we have tried is working. The only solid chance now appears to be SCOTUS or SCOTUS after RBG being truly Strict Constitutionists.

When two groups of people have unalterably (note: unalterably) opposed visions of the future for the nation, the only resolution is armed conflict.

As in physics (quantum and string theory aside), no two physical objects can occupy the same time and space, so it is that no two, or more, irreconcilable peoples can occupy the same nation, tribe, tent.

A problem for people anchored in logic and math is accommodating human nature. Perhaps the most difficult thing for anyone to accomplish is to perceive, understand and recognize error of choice. Making such a change is not logical, but emotional. A person must have a near iron grip on emotions to see uncertainty/doubt as a positive, as an assist to coming to grips with a new reality (error). Example: I once had the joy of explaining a controversial belief to be logically unsupportable by anything other than raw stubbornness. My companion actually agreed that I was logically correct by any reasonable measure. The conversation ended with my companion admitting, “I know you are correct, but I prefer to believe what I like, anyway.”

When it comes to disagreement about individual rights, and making accommodations that are reasonable by any serious measure, the problem subverting logic is that there is no reliable way to implement a reasonable accommodation that can prevent subsequent erosion of the rights belonging to the person willing to sacrifice a little to get a little. The struggle over “rights” seems to be the quintessential zero-sum game.

When I was a member of the US nuclear forces, several people (American and other nations) asked my why “Mutually assured destruction” was practiced, and why it seemed to be successful. My response was, “The US and Russia are like to guys who hate each other, and have a gun pressed against the other person’s head. Neither is willing to stand down, for fear the other will kill him. And neither is willing to pull the trigger lest the jerking reaction of the one shot results in the original shooter also being dead.” It was only the utter defeat of Russia (Ok, Soviet Union) that allowed the US to uncock and lower the nuclear pistol.

We need a ban on politicians that assault our constitutional rights. Wonder how she plans for all these rifles to magically turn themselves in. Lets begin by having her relinquish her carry permit and her assault handgun.

So, Methuselah Feinstein must surely be on to something… just like CNN that nixed their own commissioned report that determined the San Diego wall was exceptionally effective in curbing illegal immigration from that sector (i.e, Tijuana area).

DiFi needs to stop behaving like California is a damn sovereign nation that lords over the less-sophisticated stepchildren of the United States, drop the annual “assault ooga booga” nonsense, and then sit down with Stepford Pelosi and slap each other purple until they agree to build a wall on our border. And Bosco is right– she really is that ridiculous.

Selfish, ignorant jerks. I swear… California… my god, they need an earthquake on the fault line so they can just sink into the damn sea. I mean, DiFi’s race for office was a Democrat vs. Democrat– these crazy people can’t even pretend to have more than a One Party state… it reminds me of Stalin winning elections by 95%-99%. Totally, irrevocably insane.

Indeed, Mort. Perhaps Trump needs to build the wall around California. But sadly, Oregon and Washington state are just as bad. I think that any former Californian who moves to anther state, should never be allowed to vote, or run for office in their “new state”, because they learn nothing, and ruin everything. Colorado and Montana are two lovely states that former Californians have moved to, trashed, and ruined. It was a Democrat from California that sponsored a “take the guns, you get due process later” bill in our own, state legislature. Thankfully, that bill never got out of Committee.

“First a hunter must hit what he shoots at…” Accuracy is P.O. Ackley’s No. 1 “basic factor of shooting.” Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Vol. 1, P.O. Ackley, 1962.
Feinstein is demonstrating willful ignorance regarding accuracy being an established rule for proper shooting. Her bill goes against this rule to create conditions that are unsafe and inhumane. What we should be doing is to encourage gun ownership and education.